Lucy Aharish: Progressive and Practical
I agree with David Suissa’s column “Why I Love Lucy” (Oct. 30). In order for there to be true peace in the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority must have a progressive attitude. Instead of wallowing in the past with hatred and resentment, Palestinians must think of how they can move forward and build a better future. Until the Palestinian leaders adopt this Israeli mindset, the violence and hatred will never end. Israeli-Arab news personality Lucy Aharish understands what must be done to achieve peace and was brave enough to speak up. The real question is, will the Palestinian Authority ever adopt this progressive mentality and benefit for the future of its nation, or will it choose to be “stuck in failure mode”? Suissa’s opinion on the matter has made me love Lucy, too.
Talya Sawdayi, Los Angeles
It was refreshing to see a Palestinian’s positive outlook on Israel, not the usual hatred we receive from our biggest adversary. If people who are uneducated in the Israel-Palestine conflict read “Why I Love Lucy,” it would be an eye-opening experience. Lucy Aharish doesn’t belittle either side, but rather states facts to back up her arguments, which is very uncommon on social media today. She makes valid points by stating Israelis aren’t the cause for the Arabs’ downfall: “They’re so caught up in seeing themselves as victims they don’t progress and look toward the future.” If the Palestinian leaders viewed everything from her perspective, there would be peace in the Middle East today and somewhere for the Arabs to call their home, instead of trying to destroy ours. Aharish’s bold statements on matters many are afraid to discuss are truly aspiring. Her productive attitude toward the conflict is, too, why I love Lucy.
Aaliyah Botach, Los Angeles
Rob Eshman has become a bit too nostalgic (“Bring Bill Clinton Back to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Table,” Oct. 30). Bill Clinton had Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak as his Israeli counterparts. President Barack Obama has Benjamin Netanyahu. Does he really think Clinton could work with Bibi and accomplish anything?
Unfortunately, the problems we are facing today have little to do with the United States and all too much to do with Israeli leadership.
Jeffrey M. Ellis, via jewishjournal.com
Even Exchanges vs. Excuses, Continued
While “The Knife War Is Not Evenhanded” (Oct. 23) was filled with excellent points, there were a few I liked especially.
“When we confuse acts of aggression with acts of self defense, when we pretend that everyone is equally guilty and equally responsible, we suck the air out of accountability” really made me realize how angry I was about the false accusations against the Jews in situations involving weapons. Many news stations have falsely accused Israelis and Jews for causing the terror, when in reality, we are just defending our people and ourselves. Suissa made a brilliant point when stating, “Running away from this truth and trying to appear evenhanded does more than put the readers to sleep. It wakes the killers.” When the Palestinians and Arabs tell news stations and their own people things that aren’t true, they are causing even more violence between the Jews and Arabs, making people angry and making people risk their lives to hurt others.
Samantha Shapiro, North Hollywood
Temple Mount Too Much
I agree with Shmuel Rosner when he says that what we have the right to do is not always the smart thing to do (“Temple Mount: The Right Thing or the Smart Thing?” Oct. 30). I also agree with his premise that Israel’s primary obligation is to ensure a “secured future for the Jewish state.” However, I disagree with his conclusion that Israel should give up its right to visit the Temple Mount in hopes of placating the Palestinians and stopping the terrorism. I believe that making such a move would be rewarding them for acts of violence. Moreover, we’ve learned from the pullout from Lebanon in 2006 and from Gaza in 2009 that making concessions often does not promote peace, but rather emboldens the aggressors.
Tzippora Topp, Los Angeles
I disagree with Andrew Friedman’s opinion on attempting to get involved with the private matters of the Israeli police and authorities (“Detaining Peace,” Oct. 30). Not only is Friedman overstepping his boundaries, he also is unaware of the situation and barely knows the arrested man, Mohannad. Even after speaking to Khaled Abu Awwad, Mohannad’s father, and learning that the family believed Mohannad’s first jail sentence had good reason and was a fair amount of time, he still questioned the Israeli officials.
My last thought is that Mohannad’s family members are not good testifiers. Being a part of his family would make your opinion biased, at the least, and therefore unreliable.
Avital Tofler, Los Angeles